A Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida é uma das principais técnicas de avaliação ambiental de bens e serviços e pode ser classificada em duas abordagens: atribucional e consequencial. A atribucional, caracterizada pelo uso de dados médios de ICV e de alocação de coprodutos, tem como objetivo a avaliação dos impactos ambientais de um produto do berço ao túmulo, em um sistema estático. A ACV consequencial consiste na avaliação das consequências ambientais em um sistema dinâmico, orientado por mudanças. Esta abordagem vem sendo intensamente discutida na literatura internacional, porém, no Brasil ainda se trata de um tema pouco explorado. O presente trabalho visa aprofundar a discussão entre as duas abordagens da ACV. Para isso, utilizaram-se os seguintes procedimentos metodológicos: revisão da literatura e aplicação das abordagens ao biocombustível etanol hidratado de cana-de-açúcar. Os resultados apontam que a ACV atribucional apresentou maiores cargas ambientais em todas as categorias de impacto, com principalmente nas categorias de Ecotoxicidade Aquática, Ecotoxicidade Terrestre e Depleção Abiótica. Isto se deve à subtração das cargas ambientais referentes aos produtos evitados, considerados na análise devido à expansão do sistema realizada na abordagem consequencial com a finalidade de evitar a alocação que, por sua vez, foi utilizada na abordagem atribucional. Notou-se que, em teoria, a principal diferença entre as abordagens da ACV consiste em seus distintos alinhamentos quanto à aplicação pretendida, sendo a atribucional voltada ao conhecimento dos impactos ambientais do ciclo de vida de um produto e identificação de pontos críticos no sistema, e a abordagem consequencial voltada à identificação das consequências ambientais geradas por uma mudança no sistema de produto investigado. Na prática, entretanto, foram encontradas algumas limitações que comprometeram a operacionalização do estudo consequencial, distanciando-a do seu propósito teórico. Dentre estas limitações merecem destaque: o grande número de simplificações intrínsecas ao método aplicado e a falta de transparência quanto à base de dados de background utilizada. Notou-se que a operacionalização da ACV consequencial é bastante complexa, pois despende muito tempo e recursos, principalmente na coleta e validação de informações de mercado. Portanto, reforça-se a necessidade de esforços no sentido do desenvolvimento de métodos menos subjetivos e mais sistemáticos para a abordagem consequencial além de diretrizes mais esclarecedoras explicitando as diferenças quanto ao conteúdo, contextos e formas de aplicação das abordagens atribucional e consequencial da ACV e indicando em quais situações elas podem ser complementares. / Life Cycle Assessment is one of the most used tool to asses environmental impact of goods and services. It can be classified into two approaches: attributional and consequential.Attributional LCA, characterized by the use of average data ICV and coproducts allocation is aimed at assessing the environmental impacts of a product from the cradle to the grave, in a static system. The consequential LCA is the evaluation of the environmental consequences in a dynamic system driven by changes. Both approaches have been intensively discussed in the literature in recent years, but in Brazil it is still a little discussed and explored topic. Thus, this study aims to deepen the discussion between the two LCA approaches. For this, the following methodological procedures are used: literature review and application of the approaches on hydrated bioethanol from sugarcane. The results show that the attributional LCA has higher environmental burdens in all impact categories, with greater difference with consequential in the categories of aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity and abiotic depletion. This is due to the subtraction of environmental charges related to avoided products, considered at the time of system expansion in consequential approach, which did not occur in attributional (where co- products were treated by means of allocation). The main differences between the approaches reflect their different alignments on the intended application, the attributional approach is mostly focused on the knowledge of the environmental impacts of the life cycle of a product and identification of improvement points to the system, while the consequential approach aims to verify potential environmental consequences generated by the change in product system investigated. In practice, however, it was observed that the consequential LCA results should be interpreted with great caution due to the fact that the application has brought a large number of limitations, such as: great number of simplifications of the method applied, consideration of standard assumptions when the lack of information for the collection of data and lack of transparency as to the basis of background data used. Moreover, its implementation is still quite complex, requiring much time and resources to collect data and market information. Therefore, we reinforce what has already been established through the literature review: efforts are needed towards the development of less subjective methods and more systematic for consequential approach as well as more enlightening guidelines explaining the differences in the content, context and application forms of attributional and consequential LCA approaches.

A Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida é uma das principais técnicas de avaliação ambiental de bens e serviços e pode ser classificada em duas abordagens: atribucional e consequencial. A atribucional, caracterizada pelo uso de dados médios de ICV e de alocação de coprodutos, tem como objetivo a avaliação dos impactos ambientais de um produto do berço ao túmulo, em um sistema estático. A ACV consequencial consiste na avaliação das consequências ambientais em um sistema dinâmico, orientado por mudanças. Esta abordagem vem sendo intensamente discutida na literatura internacional, porém, no Brasil ainda se trata de um tema pouco explorado. O presente trabalho visa aprofundar a discussão entre as duas abordagens da ACV. Para isso, utilizaram-se os seguintes procedimentos metodológicos: revisão da literatura e aplicação das abordagens ao biocombustível etanol hidratado de cana-de-açúcar. Os resultados apontam que a ACV atribucional apresentou maiores cargas ambientais em todas as categorias de impacto, com principalmente nas categorias de Ecotoxicidade Aquática, Ecotoxicidade Terrestre e Depleção Abiótica. Isto se deve à subtração das cargas ambientais referentes aos produtos evitados, considerados na análise devido à expansão do sistema realizada na abordagem consequencial com a finalidade de evitar a alocação que, por sua vez, foi utilizada na abordagem atribucional. Notou-se que, em teoria, a principal diferença entre as abordagens da ACV consiste em seus distintos alinhamentos quanto à aplicação pretendida, sendo a atribucional voltada ao conhecimento dos impactos ambientais do ciclo de vida de um produto e identificação de pontos críticos no sistema, e a abordagem consequencial voltada à identificação das consequências ambientais geradas por uma mudança no sistema de produto investigado. Na prática, entretanto, foram encontradas algumas limitações que comprometeram a operacionalização do estudo consequencial, distanciando-a do seu propósito teórico. Dentre estas limitações merecem destaque: o grande número de simplificações intrínsecas ao método aplicado e a falta de transparência quanto à base de dados de background utilizada. Notou-se que a operacionalização da ACV consequencial é bastante complexa, pois despende muito tempo e recursos, principalmente na coleta e validação de informações de mercado. Portanto, reforça-se a necessidade de esforços no sentido do desenvolvimento de métodos menos subjetivos e mais sistemáticos para a abordagem consequencial além de diretrizes mais esclarecedoras explicitando as diferenças quanto ao conteúdo, contextos e formas de aplicação das abordagens atribucional e consequencial da ACV e indicando em quais situações elas podem ser complementares. / Life Cycle Assessment is one of the most used tool to asses environmental impact of goods and services. It can be classified into two approaches: attributional and consequential.Attributional LCA, characterized by the use of average data ICV and coproducts allocation is aimed at assessing the environmental impacts of a product from the cradle to the grave, in a static system. The consequential LCA is the evaluation of the environmental consequences in a dynamic system driven by changes. Both approaches have been intensively discussed in the literature in recent years, but in Brazil it is still a little discussed and explored topic. Thus, this study aims to deepen the discussion between the two LCA approaches. For this, the following methodological procedures are used: literature review and application of the approaches on hydrated bioethanol from sugarcane. The results show that the attributional LCA has higher environmental burdens in all impact categories, with greater difference with consequential in the categories of aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity and abiotic depletion. This is due to the subtraction of environmental charges related to avoided products, considered at the time of system expansion in consequential approach, which did not occur in attributional (where co- products were treated by means of allocation). The main differences between the approaches reflect their different alignments on the intended application, the attributional approach is mostly focused on the knowledge of the environmental impacts of the life cycle of a product and identification of improvement points to the system, while the consequential approach aims to verify potential environmental consequences generated by the change in product system investigated. In practice, however, it was observed that the consequential LCA results should be interpreted with great caution due to the fact that the application has brought a large number of limitations, such as: great number of simplifications of the method applied, consideration of standard assumptions when the lack of information for the collection of data and lack of transparency as to the basis of background data used. Moreover, its implementation is still quite complex, requiring much time and resources to collect data and market information. Therefore, we reinforce what has already been established through the literature review: efforts are needed towards the development of less subjective methods and more systematic for consequential approach as well as more enlightening guidelines explaining the differences in the content, context and application forms of attributional and consequential LCA approaches.

Research on historical developments that lead to the establishment of global organizations for climate change has shown that the phenomenon of surface temperature is not a new topic of focus. Increased policy restrictions, brand image, fear of resource scarcity, growing market trends towards sustainability and consumer awareness are among the several external factors that have influenced the growing research in corporate transition towards carbon neutrality. The main aim of this study is to understand through data accounting of major material and energy carrier changes, how a non-production facility could transition to become a carbon-neutral facility. Therefore, an exploratory case study has been performed and conducted at Volvo CE Customer center in Eskilstuna, Sweden, with two objectives: i) to identify and quantify the customer center current footprint by mapping the main contributors to greenhouse gases emissions, and ii) to recommend specific & general measures that can mitigate the carbon footprint of the facility. Three research questions related to the facility’s current carbon footprint, measures implemented so far, and the best applied assessment method, have guided us throughout the study. The methodology has been framed to give a theoretical underpinning for understanding the project from a holistic perspective. The split of the methodology has been constructed in line with the theoretical framework that gave the foundation to the needed theories to be taken into account i.e. GHG protocol, which is the tool that has been adopted by the study to attain the desired aim, including the three scopes under the protocol which were also defined accordingly. ‘Scope 1’ has been taken into account and is a representation of direct emissions, ‘Scope 2 represents the indirect emissions, and ‘Scope 3’ (according to the GHG protocol) takes into account the rest of the indirect emissions arranged into 15 categories, from which applicable to our study were 4 categories (1, 3, 4 and 6). The results showed that during the base year (2019) the highest user within Scope 1 was diesel, followed by HVO, and under Scope 2, The results from Scope 1 and 2, together with the results of Scope 3 category, were analyzed using the attributional LCA approach recommended by the GHG protocol to calculate their contribution to the customer centers’ total carbon footprint. It was found that Scope 1 stands for 128.52 t CO₂-eq while Scope 2 stands only for 1.16 t CO₂-eq and finally Scope 3 stands for most of the emissions with 3719 t CO₂-eq. It has been found that in 2019, the customer center has saved 101.05 tonnes of GHG by implementing measures, such as switching from using Diesel to HVO and switching from the mixed electricity to the renewable ones, according to the attributional perspective presented in the GHG protocol. However, different results were found when these values were discussed and analyzed from the consequential perspective, since this perspective analyses the effects of the implemented measures on the global emission level. This concluded that implementation of conservation and efficiency measures must take priority before switching to higher priced renewables. Thus, the resulting carbon neutrality will be consequentially safer. The recommendations stated in this study also follows the same principle “Conserve before investing”. Suggestions and recommendations outlined in the study for future implementation approach carbon neutrality as a strategy and not a burden, helping the customer neutral achieve the goal in an Environment, Economic and Socially sustainable manner.

L’Analyse du Cycle de Vie (ACV) est une méthode d’évaluation multicritère des impacts environnementaux des biens et services. A ces débuts, l’ACV, dite Attributionnelle (ACVA), s’est attachée à analyser les impacts environnementaux dans des situations statiques pour la réalisation d’études comparatives, la communication environnementale et le développement de produits. De récents développements méthodologiques ont vu l’émergence de l’ACV Conséquentielle (ACVC) qui vise à quantifier les impacts directs et indirects de changements, via les mécanismes de marchés, permettant ainsi l’évaluation de politiques publiques. Cette thèse vise à proposer un cadre méthodologique pour l’évaluation d’instruments de politiques publiques dans le secteur de l’élevage laitier en combinant ACV et modèles économiquesElle s’articule autour de trois axes : i) identification et caractérisation des performances environnementale de technologies de production laitières par ACVA ; ii) adaptation du modèle économique MATSIM-LUCA pour les besoins de la thèse ; iii) évaluation par ACVC des impacts environnementaux de la suppression des quotas laitiers et de l’introduction d’une prime à l’herbe en Europe. Les travaux réalisés fournissent : i) une première proposition méthodologique pour l’évaluation d’instruments de politiques publiques par ACVC dans le secteur de l’élevage et ii) plusieurs pistes d’amélioration nécessaires pour rendre la méthode opérationnelle pour les décideurs publics. / Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a multicriteria method to assess environmental impacts of goods and services. In its early stages, LCA, known as Attributional (ALCA), was used to assess environmental impacts in a status-quo situation for benchmarking, environmental communication and product development. Recent methodological developments led to Consequential LCA (CLCA), which aims to quantify direct and indirect impacts of changes, through market mechanisms, allowing for public policy assessment. The aim of this Ph.D. thesis is to develop a methodological framework to assess public policy instruments in the livestock sector by combining LCA and economic modellingThis thesis is organized into three axes: i) identification and characterization of environmental performances of dairy production technologies through ALCA; ii) adaptation of MATSIM-LUCA economic model to the needs of the thesis; iii) environmental impact assessment through CLCA of dairy quota removal and implementation of a grass premium in the European Union. This work provides i) initial development of a methodological framework for assessing public policy instruments in the livestock sector and ii) identification of several improvements needed to make the method operational for stakeholders.